Its a nice small tour - 3 T20s, 3 0di's and 3 tests.
England have to play these games as part of international commitments.
Haven't found anywhere that says a side has to remain on the road for 5 months at a time.
I was looking this morning at the England fixture schedule, it's a good reason why Pietersen retired.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/team/1.html?template=fixtures
The above schedule is an excellent reason for resting players, especially those who play all three formats.
Hopefully the selectors will also take opportunities to introduce new talent.
more then england, india players play so much more, everyone has to agree, irrespctive of what the results are. But india also rests some of the big names in low profile games. England unfortunately havent done that for a good 3-4 years. I think sometimes rather than balming the schedule blame the selectors. You dont always have to send your best 11. If you are playing a bangladesh team, or just baseless odis then you should risk by playing a 2nd string team and see how they perform.
Viru, not true. Where do you draw the line then? That’s just pure arrogance if you consistently rest your big names against so called smaller nations. Didn’t new Zealand just draw 1-1 with austraila recently?
Also, india rested big names vs west indies last year so they would be fresh for the England tour – we all know what happened there. Then some Indian fans finger pointed at the selectors for resting them vs west indies and blamed lack of match practice. Sometimes the selectors just cant win, whichever route they take.
In the last tour to Bangladesh England introduced Finn, Carberry and Treadwell. And Bresnan, Morgan and Bairstow have bee given chances. Tremlett made his debut against Australia.
In ODI many new players have been given opportunities.
Few successful teams have been as proactive in this way but with the schedule ahead they must continue with this policy.
Of course it wasn't Tremlett's debut (stupid me) but it was a new selection for Andy Flower.
Guys im not saying rest players for all tests, but surely u can rest them for odis and t20s? Even india, before westindies, have never rested big players for any tests matches unless players were injured. I mean i dont see why if you are winning a test series 2-0 and you are going to a final test, why you cant rest someone like anderson or cook?
We all have to agree more than the tests, there are more of the baseless odis and t20s. We all enjoy tests no matter how many of them are played. Its the odis and t20s that are more of a nuisance to me.
it seems a bit strange to have the first game of the tour more than a month before the start of the 1st test.
Were have you read Jimmy Anderson has retired from ODI's?
Page 1 of 1
First
Previous
1
Next
Latest
Sign in if you want to comment
England Tour New Zealand
Page 1 of 1
posted on 21/6/12
Its a nice small tour - 3 T20s, 3 0di's and 3 tests.
England have to play these games as part of international commitments.
posted on 21/6/12
Haven't found anywhere that says a side has to remain on the road for 5 months at a time.
posted on 21/6/12
I was looking this morning at the England fixture schedule, it's a good reason why Pietersen retired.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/team/1.html?template=fixtures
posted on 21/6/12
The above schedule is an excellent reason for resting players, especially those who play all three formats.
Hopefully the selectors will also take opportunities to introduce new talent.
posted on 21/6/12
more then england, india players play so much more, everyone has to agree, irrespctive of what the results are. But india also rests some of the big names in low profile games. England unfortunately havent done that for a good 3-4 years. I think sometimes rather than balming the schedule blame the selectors. You dont always have to send your best 11. If you are playing a bangladesh team, or just baseless odis then you should risk by playing a 2nd string team and see how they perform.
posted on 21/6/12
Viru, not true. Where do you draw the line then? That’s just pure arrogance if you consistently rest your big names against so called smaller nations. Didn’t new Zealand just draw 1-1 with austraila recently?
Also, india rested big names vs west indies last year so they would be fresh for the England tour – we all know what happened there. Then some Indian fans finger pointed at the selectors for resting them vs west indies and blamed lack of match practice. Sometimes the selectors just cant win, whichever route they take.
posted on 21/6/12
In the last tour to Bangladesh England introduced Finn, Carberry and Treadwell. And Bresnan, Morgan and Bairstow have bee given chances. Tremlett made his debut against Australia.
In ODI many new players have been given opportunities.
Few successful teams have been as proactive in this way but with the schedule ahead they must continue with this policy.
posted on 21/6/12
Of course it wasn't Tremlett's debut (stupid me) but it was a new selection for Andy Flower.
posted on 21/6/12
Guys im not saying rest players for all tests, but surely u can rest them for odis and t20s? Even india, before westindies, have never rested big players for any tests matches unless players were injured. I mean i dont see why if you are winning a test series 2-0 and you are going to a final test, why you cant rest someone like anderson or cook?
We all have to agree more than the tests, there are more of the baseless odis and t20s. We all enjoy tests no matter how many of them are played. Its the odis and t20s that are more of a nuisance to me.
posted on 22/6/12
it seems a bit strange to have the first game of the tour more than a month before the start of the 1st test.
posted on 26/6/12
Were have you read Jimmy Anderson has retired from ODI's?
Page 1 of 1